2021 NFL CBA: playoff seeding

[CGI_Ram]

After all, that's how you begin to build a team--to beat your division foes.

That’s a good point.

It also supports the current division winner gets home-game, format.

 

[fanotodd]

That’s a good point.

It also supports the current division winner gets home-game, format.

Yeah, you're right and if I had my way, I would just let things stand the way they are; but people have to justify their paycheck and I believe THAT is really the biggest impetus behind most changes.

This issue has always been about the runners up who are in a 2 horse race. Whether it's your division, your conference, or the frickin SB...2nd place sucks, Deal with it. We have to this year.

In a nutshell, we're really talking about the AFC west ( noted underachievers chargers and chiefs) and the "we were robbed!" saints who were run all over by a 7-9 team with a backup QB.

 

[Ram65]

Keep it the same. Nothing like division games where lesser teams like the old Rams gave the Hags fits. The NFC East games are usually physical battles where the better team doesn't always win. Next they will want to eliminate the divisions.

 

[oldnotdead]

Why change something that ain't broke. Okay so what if a 11-5 wildcard plays on the road with a home game for a 9-7 division winner.

1. The 11-5 team has already benefited from their record and is in the playoffs. The wild card concept was created to reward high win teams in competitive divisions. What do I say to that team? Next time win your division.

2. If the 11-5 wildcard is really as good as their record they should be able to beat any 9-7 team even on the road right?

3. The rank by win total rewards teams with easy schedules at the expense of teams that might have a more difficult schedule. How fair is that? The only way ranking by win total would be fair is if all teams played each other once during the season. I don't see a 31 game season in the making. So IMO this is a very bad idea.

 

[Picked4td]

Right now, the four division winners are guaranteed the top four seeds. I prefer it that way. Yes, it sometimes means a division winner (say, with a 9-7 record) would host a wildcard team with a better record (say,11-5).

If you seed completely based on record, however, then you would have the 11-5 wildcard team host the 9-7 division winner. Yes, perhaps that seems more fair, but then it means exactly what I said, earlier— that all conference games would count exactly the same. Division games would no longer carry more weight than other in-conference games.

Take a look at the NBA, for example. Seeding is based entirely by conference. There is no importance given to “divisions” anymore, playoff seeding is entirely based on conferences.

Edit: just read an article about NBA seeding procedures, and found this quote:

Why does the old division system even exist? Well, it still exists but the rewards of winning a division are now pretty miniscule, unless you like “Division Champion” banners.

Yeah, no thanks.

1. nba is completely different since 8/15 teams in a conference make playoffs.

2. division wins would still count more because winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot. a good record without winning division would not

 

[oldnotdead]

Okay hows this?

Getting rid of cross conference games. Doing away with divisions. Adding one new franchise to each conference. Then every team plays only teams in their conference once. 17 teams = 16 games with rankings done by record. The the top however many teams make the cut. Home field determined by record. That is the only way to make ranking by record fair. Anything else rewards teams with weak schedules and handicaps team with harder schedules. Ties at the bottom of the cut are determined by tie breakers. I hate coin flipping too many variables. I prefer a single dice throw, declaring odd or even.

IMO cross conference play created this mess along with wanting to exploit rivalries. Home field is simply flipped every year. It makes every game more important. No more of this resting starters at the end of season games. Each game will mean more. Look at how many millions the league will grab by adding 2 new teams. Champions of their conferences will truly be just that.

 

[Loyal]

I hate it, and not just because I'm old. lol. There is so much I am disappointed with about major league baseball, and the changes happened incrementally, undermining things I loved about the sport. Divisional titles used to mean everything in baseball. If you won 102 games in the regular season and the division winner won 103, you were SOL. Ther were/are 162 games in the mlb season and so there were no excuses. Who cares if one of the divisions won there's with 95 wins, and your team was aced out coming short with 102 wins. It added intense drama coming down to the last 20 games in the season, because it was win the division or die.

Now that's gone.

Same with the NFL as far as the Wild Card, but less so. Every game meant so much more than mlb because there were only 14 game seasons that got expanded to 16 games. I'd rather have no wild cards in the NFL, but it's grown on me like a fungus, so I can live with it. So if they make the divisional title almost worthless, they change the rivalry aspect permanently. I DO like seeing divional title banners in the stadium. Adding another couple of wild cards in each conference cheapens the playoffs even further. Having the best record trumping a divisional winner status, makes them almost totally worthless. Pointing toward the only 7-9 divisional winner in the Seahawks is an aberration in NFL history, and I think seeing the Patriots own their division as they have done for more than a decade, inspires jealousy. Don't like it? Win more games.

It's all about money for players and owners. Owners want more real games to charge out the wazoo. Both owners and players want a greater chance to make even more money by being the extra wild card team. More playoff money and bragging rights for good playoff players come contract time.

 

[rams1fan]

Playoff seeding to go to the team with the least number of letters in their team name (excluding geographic location).

 

[Raptorman]

Why not go like the NHL. All teams make the playoffs except the bottom 4.

 

[XXXIVwin]

1. nba is completely different since 8/15 teams in a conference make playoffs.

2. division wins would still count more because winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot. a good record without winning division would not

Nope. Wrong.

Regarding point #1, here’s a quote from the article in the OP, which started this thread:

“In a recent interview with NBC Sports, Winston wrote that he would like to see playoff teams seeded by record, not by whether or not they won a division title. If that format sounds familiar, it's probably because it's the same format that was implemented by the NBA during the 2015-16 season.”

So yeah, that’s the whole point, the NFL is considering a seeding format which is similar to the NBA.

Point # 2, you’re wrong again. First off, one of the proposals being considered does not guarantee a spot for winning a division— it’s a straight up “best record, best seed” proposal. Secondly, even if a weak division winner is guaranteed a spot— make no mistake, the importance of “division games” would be severely diluted. The contest for seeding would be based on W-L record, and division games would lose their importance relative to other games. The way the system is now, all division winners are guaranteed AT LEAST a 4 seed or higher, and a home playoff game. That’s a big incentive. Under the new system being proposed, the weakest division winners would probably end up as 5 or 6 seeds and have to play on the road.

Look, people can have their preferences, but let’s not kid ourselves— it’s an either/or choice. Ya can’t have the best of both. Either you place an emphasis on winning divisions (like now), and you guarantee a 4 seed to division winners. OR, you do seeding based on record— which might seem more fair, but would inevitably reduce the significance of winning the division. It’s one or the other, you can’t have both.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Okay hows this?

Getting rid of cross conference games.

What, ya didn’t like that MNF Rams-Chiefs game?

I think it’s great the way it is, all teams get a chance to play every other team at least once every four years. Adds some variety, fans get to see how their team stacks up against the other conference’s teams.

Rams never playing any other AFC team, ever, except for in the SB? No way.

 

[Picked4td]

Nope. Wrong.

Regarding point #1, here’s a quote from the article in the OP, which started this thread:

“In a recent interview with NBC Sports, Winston wrote that he would like to see playoff teams seeded by record, not by whether or not they won a division title. If that format sounds familiar, it's probably because it's the same format that was implemented by the NBA during the 2015-16 season.”

So yeah, that’s the whole point, the NFL is considering a seeding format which is similar to the NBA.

Point # 2, you’re wrong again. First off, one of the proposals being considered does not guarantee a spot for winning a division— it’s a straight up “best record, best seed” proposal. Secondly, even if a weak division winner is guaranteed a spot— make no mistake, the importance of “division games” would be severely diluted. The contest for seeding would be based on W-L record, and division games would lose their importance relative to other games. The way the system is now, all division winners are guaranteed AT LEAST a 4 seed or higher, and a home playoff game. That’s a big incentive. Under the new system being proposed, the weakest division winners would probably end up as 5 or 6 seeds and have to play on the road.

Look, people can have their preferences, but let’s not kid ourselves— it’s an either/or choice. Ya can’t have the best of both. Either you place an emphasis on winning divisions (like now), and you guarantee a 4 seed to division winners. OR, you do seeding based on record— which might seem more fair, but would inevitably reduce the significance of winning the division. It’s one or the other, you can’t have both.

actually, im not wrong.

point 1 was in response to you trying to compare it to the NBA which again is totally different because 8 out of 15 teams in a conference make the playoffs, meaning every division winner makes the playoffs so yes in the NBA divisions are pointless. where as in the NFL only 6 of 16 teams in a conference make the playoffs, so theres much more importance of winning your division, especially considering we have seen teams win div and make playoffs when they werent the top 6 best records in conference.

point 2 im not arguing that division wins would be less important than they are now, thats kind of a given. i was arguing your point that a division win and conference win would be the same when thats totally false. in tie breakers, division wins would still be before conference wins and winning division still secures playoff spot regardless of record. division games/wins would still be more important than conference wins any way you look at it

 

[CGI_Ram]

Playoff seeding to go to the team with the least number of letters in their team name (excluding geographic location).

Why not go like the NHL. All teams make the playoffs except the bottom 4.

LOL awesome!

 

[Young Ram]

I like the way it is. Reward teams that win their division a home playoff game. If you go by record then divisions are pointless.

 

[XXXIVwin]

actually, im not wrong.

so theres much more importance of winning your division, especially considering we have seen teams win div and make playoffs when they werent the top 6 best records in conference.
pit

Nah, yer still wrong.

BTW, this “proposal” is never gonna happen, cuz it’s too stupid and the fans would hate it... because (as I’ve said) it would destroy the importance of division rivalries.

It’s cuz of math. Although we remember when crappy division winners sneak into the playoffs, it’s actually a very RARE OCCURRENCE that a crappy division winner beats out a superior wild card team FOR THE SIXTH AND FINAL PLAYOFF SPOT. Go ahead, look over the last ten years. It happened in 2015, and in 2011. It happens about once every four or five years. (And yes, we all remember the 7-9 Hawk division champs, but that was a statistical fluke.) Given that there are 8 divisions, and it happens once every 4-5 years, this means that it happens about 1 out of 32 times, or 1 out of 40 times.Thats around 2 or 3 percent occurrence.

IOW, under this BS “proposal”, it has very little significance to “guarantee” a division winner a playoff spot because this would happen ANYWAY 98% of the time.

Granted, I’m tired and not explaining this well. But under this BS proposal, a division win would only be more important than a conference win under one specific and rare scenario: that a team’s W-L record WOULDNT get them in the playoffs UNLESS they win a division. That is very rare.

Therefore, around 98% of the time— certainly over 95% of the time— division wins would have the SAME importance as conference wins.

I remember reading an article about this some time ago, but I’m having trouble finding it. Suffice it to say— I hope that the NFL keeps it the way it is, and doesn’t end up like the NBA, where winning a division hardly matters at all.